Comments by "John Burns" (@johnburns4017) on "Opposed Piston Diesel Engines Are Crazy Efficient" video.

  1. Two stokes like in Mopeds may have 3 of the combustion phases occurring in one stroke of the cylinder. That is not the case here. It is very different.
    3
  2. Lubrication of the top piston is the same as the bottom.
    2
  3. Rootes had tested over a millions miles a TS4 (4 cylinder version), which was ready for production and fitting in a vehicle. Chrysler bought out Rootes and told the English engineers to destroy the TS4 engines. They hid some of them from the Americans. This superb engine was dropped so Chrysler's appalling existing range could be fitted in the trucks. Commer went downhill after the TS3s were phased out in their trucks. A TS4 made its way to NZ were it was reconditioned and ran.
    2
  4. In this arrangement power is evenly distributed to each crankshaft. One way of viewing these engines is that the top piston replaces poppet valves - the original idea. The top piston can be much smaller and lighter with a lighter crank like a camshaft. Then the power is concentrated on the large crank, with the top piston replacing the poppet valves.
    1
  5.  @sandervanderkammen9230  The top piston, acting as a valve, does not have to be so heavy at all.
    1
  6. The TS4 had no problem and was ready for production with road trials in many trucks.
    1
  7.  @aivarspriede9478  The TS4 delivered 200 HP. One TS4 made its way to NZ being renovated and worked.
    1
  8.  @aivarspriede9478  It was estimated that a 6 cylinder engine would give 300 HP. If that daft backwards, money obsessed Chrysler did not scrap a proven and brilliant engine, it would have been with us today in some form. Modern metallurgy, improved supercharger/scavenger and injection systems, would have improved efficiency for sure. Power/weight was brilliant. Being made even lighter with aluminium, it would have been suitable for aircraft. The engine could run backwards and occasionally did. 😄 Put it in a high gear then roll backwards down a hill, it would run backwards. There was less piston side thrust than normal cranked engines.
    1
  9. The ECoMotor does.
    1
  10. An advantage of opposed pistons is fewer moving parts.
    1
  11. Not surprising. EV cars and trucks are taking over - and will do quick.
    1
  12.  @dpb1948  Rootes made the TS-3 engine for 18 years. It had a wonderful distinctive sound to it. Chrysler bought out Rootes dropping the highly efficient engine in 1972 wanting to sell their inefficient existing US derived line of engines. Rootes had a 4 cylinder version, the TS-4, developed to go into a new model line of trucks. Chrysler order them destroyed. The engineers saved a few of them.
    1
  13. EcoMotors R&D'd one of these. Backed by Bill Gates, they went bust. I can think of about 6 engines like this. Apart from the Leyland tank engine, all were dropped. Wrong engine for the wrong time. EV is the way.
    1
  14. This does not have a camshaft but an extra heavy crankshaft and a scavenging blower.
    1
  15. Daniel Jimenez Understand what Jason explained.
    1
  16. No. Three cylinders with two pistons in each.
    1
  17. Ryan Miller It is not. One piston can be viewed as a large multi-purpose valve.
    1
  18. A one cylinder version as genset in a hybrid may be feasible. Or a three cylinder as a genset in a truck.
    1
  19. 3.5 litres with an amazing power/weight ratio.
    1